“We have reached a settlement on litigation with Lupin,
Mylan and Watson regarding Trilipix,” Abbott spokeswoman Adelle
Infante said in an e-mail. “The terms are confidential.”

Abbott filed complaints in 2010 against each of the three
companies and dismissed them yesterday in federal court in
Newark, New Jersey. Watson, Mylan and Lupin had sought U.S. Food
and Drug Administration approval to market 45-milligram and 135-milligram copies of Trilipix, according to the complaints.

Abbott, based in Abbott Park, Illinois, sued with its
Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. They claimed the generic
companies infringed a patent that expires in January 2025.
Watson is based in Corona, California; Lupin, in Mumbai; and
Mylan, in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

In October, Impax Laboratories Inc. said it settled patent
litigation with Abbott and Fournier, permitting it to sell a
generic version of Trilipix as early as 2013.

An Abbott lawsuit against Actavis Group Hf over a generic
copy of Trilipix, filed in 2010, is pending in Newark.

Kodak filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court seeking
approval of an auction process that would keep secret all bidder
names and the amounts offered, according to a statement from the
Rochester, New York-based company. That may lead to the
announcement of a winner on Aug. 13.

Kodak is selling more than 1,100 patents to help shrink the
company’s focus to printing rather than photography. It had
until June 30 to file an outline of the bid procedures, and the
motion accelerates that process. Its two patent portfolios, one
containing digital-capture patents and the other imaging systems
and services, may be Kodak’s most valuable assets.

The company said it has generated more than $3 billion from
licensing the digital-imaging patents from users including
Samsung Electronics Co., LG Electronics Inc., Motorola Mobility
Holdings Inc. and Nokia Oyj.

The patent technology is valued at $2.21 billion to $2.57
billion, based on an estimate by 284 Partners LLC, a patent
advisory firm cited in a debtor’s motion filed before a U.S.
bankruptcy court in January.

Kodak is pursuing patent litigation before the U.S.
International Trade Commission against Apple Inc., Research In
Motion Ltd. and HTC Corp., alleging they infringe some of the
for-sale patents. Kodak has said a victory in the case may force
the companies to pay for licensing and bolster the value of the
patent portfolios the company is seeking to sell.

Kodak is appealing to the six-member commission in
Washington, which has the power to block imports of products
that infringe U.S. patents. Their decision is due in September.

Kodak hired Lazard Ltd. more than a year ago to try to find
buyers for the patents. The photography pioneer that introduced
the Brownie camera more than a century ago filed for bankruptcy
in January as digital photography cut into its film business.

The case is In re Eastman Kodak Co., 12-10202, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

For more patent news, click here.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

L-3 Communications Accused of Misappropriating Trade Secrets

Several units of L-3-Communications Holdings, a New York-based defense contractor, were sued for trade secrets
misappropriation by Vision Technologies Inc., of Bentonville,
Arkansas.

The suit, filed in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas,
accuses the L-3 units of violating a non-disclosure agreement
and providing Vision Technologies’ confidential technical
specifications and drawings for high-end cameras and camera
mounts to a competitor.

Vision Technologies said although it had been in discussion
to supply the cameras and camera mounts to L-3, the actual
purchase was repeatedly delayed and then terminated in January
2012. Two months later, Vision Technologies said it learned that
a rival company was selected to provide the cameras and mounts,
and that the other company’s products were “virtually the same
as the design and characteristics of its cameras and mounting
systems.”

The information on which the competing products were
allegedly based was known “only to a handful” of Vision
Technologies’ employees, and was shared outside the company only
“with the understanding that the specifications are to be kept
confidential,” the company said.

It asked the court for an order barring L-3 from further
disclosing the Vision Technologies’ trade secrets, and for money
damages in excess of $2 million, for extra damages to punish L-3
for its actions, and for awards of attorney fees and litigation
costs.

L-3 didn’t respond immediately to an e-mailed request for
comment.

The case is Vision Technologies Inc., v. L-3 Communications
MAPPS Inc., 5:12-cv-05102-LKH, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Arkansas (Fayetteville).

Copyright

Pirate Bay Makes End Runs Around Courts’ Blocking Orders

Pirate Bay, the website through which users share films,
games and music filed, is adding new Internet Protocol addresses
in efforts to circumvent court orders requiring Internet service
providers to block access to the site, the TorrentFreak anti-copyright website reported.

Content owners had persuaded courts in the U.K. and the
Netherlands to block access to Pirate Bay, saying the sites
facilitated copyright infringement, according to TorrentFreak.

A cat-and-mouse game seems to be developing, with Pirate
Bay adding new IP addresses just as fast as the content owners
get court orders blocking access to the old ones, according to
TorrentFreak.

The publicity surrounding the court orders has actually
caused in increase rather than a decline of traffic to Pirate
Bay, TorrentFreak reported.

For more copyright news, click here.

Trademark

University of Alabama Loses Trademark Dispute with Artist

A trademark dispute between the artist who designed the
U.S. postage stamp honoring University of Alabama football coach
Paul “Bear” Bryant and the university has been decided in the
artist’s favor.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said June 11 that
“First Amendment interests in artistic expression so clearly
outweigh whatever consumer confusion that might exist.”

The school had sued Daniel Moore for trademark infringement
in federal court in Alabama in March 2005.

Moore, who sells his work through NewLifeArt.com,
specializes in football images from southern universities,
including the universities of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky and
Mississippi, as well as Louisiana State University and Auburn
University.

He is a graduate of the University of Alabama, as is his
wife and one of his daughters. Another daughter had also
attended the university, he said in court papers.

The university claimed Moore infringed its trademarks by
refusing to take a license to make his commercial prints
featuring the University of Alabama football team, and further
infringed it by selling coffee mugs and other merchandise with
reproductions of his prints of Alabama football teams, according
to court papers.

Moore claimed in his court papers that his artwork
“journalized historic moments and events in Alabama football.”
The work is “protected under the rights afforded under the
First Amendment,” he said in his pleadings, noting that the
university had granted him “press/media privileges” to
research and create his work for two decades.

The case was closely watched in Alabama because of the
immense popularity of the university’s football team.

The appeals court said that Moore’s depiction of the team’s
uniforms in his unlicensed paintings, prints and calendars is
not prohibited by any prior licensing agreement with the
university, and that the uniforms “in these works or art are
artistically relevant to the underlying works.”

The one part of the case that was returned to the lower
court was the question of whether the depiction of the uniforms
in Moore’s art reproduced on mugs and other “mundane items”
also fell into fair use.

A story on Hollywood Reporter’s website suggested that
movie studios may keep the appeals court ruling in mind when it
comes to depicting sports teams in films.

The lower court case is Board of Trustees of the University
of Alabama v. New Life Art Inc., 7:05-cv000585-SLB, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Western Division.
The appeals court case is University of Alabama Board of
Trustees v. New Life Inc., 09-16412-A, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit.

Hotel Morgantown Responds to Hotel Morgan’s Trademark Complaint

The company operating a hotel in Morgantown, West Virginia,
has responded to a trademark-infringement suit brought by the
86-year-old Hotel Morgan Co.

The suit, filed in a West Virginia federal court in April,
accused Sahaj Morgantown LLC of infringing the rights of the
Hotel Morgan Co. Both companies operate hotels in Morgantown.

Sahaj Morgantown, which filed its response June 6, said its
use of the name “Hotel Morgantown” falls within U.S. trademark
law’s definition of fair use. The company also claims that the
Hotel Morgan Co. failed to state a claim for which federal law
provides a remedy.

The Hotel Morgan Co. had asked the court to order Sahaj
Morgantown to change its name to something that didn’t contain
the worlds “hotel” together with either “Morgan” or
“Morgantown.” The company acknowledged that it had never
registered “Hotel Morgan” as a state or federal trademark and
claimed that the term had acquired secondary meaning, as defined
by trademark law, and was entitled to protection.

Hotel Morgan also had sought termination of Hotel
Morgantown’s trademarks, and awards of money damages, litigation
costs and attorney fees.

Sahaj Morgantown responded by asking the court to dismiss
the case and to require Hotel Morgan Co. to pay the costs
related to the defense of the suit.

The case is Hotel Morgan Co. v. Sahaj Morgantown LLC, 1:12-cv-00071-IMK, U.S. District Court, Northern District of West
Virginia (Clarksburg).

For more trademark news, click here.

IP Moves

Universal Display Hires Disney’s Premutico as Patents VP

Universal Display Corp. hired Mauro Premutico as vice
president, legal and general manager, patents and licensing, the
New York-based developer of organic light-emitting diode
technology said in a statement.

Premutico joins from Walt Disney Co., where he was managing
vice president and chief patent counsel. He has also previously
done patent-portfolio management and licensing work at Lenovo
Group Ltd. and Symbol Technologies Inc.

He has practiced at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP in
New York, at Brumbaugh Graves Donohue & Raymond, which is now
part of Houston’s Baker Botts LLP, and at New York’s Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Premutico has an undergraduate degree from Worcester
Polytechnic Institution and a law degree from Boston University.